Thank you for contacting me about animal testing.
I completely understand that the use of animals in science, including toxicity testing, is a sensitive issue, and as such I welcome that the UK is one of the world's leading nations in the development of non-animal methods. I know the Government is keen to ensure that these are utilised wherever is possible and I share the Government’s ambition to reach the point at which animal research and testing is no longer necessary, having been fully replaced by effective alternatives. Sadly, however, technology is not yet at a point to wholly replace animal testing.
Therefore, I currently support the Government’s approach to support and accelerate advances in biomedical science and technology to reduce reliance on the use of animals in research. The Government is actively supporting and funding the development and dissemination of the three Rs which aim to replace the use of animals not necessary for research; to reduce the use of animals in the meantime; and to refine to eliminate or reduce distress to those animals already involved. This is primarily delivered through the National Centre for 3Rs (the NC3Rs) and since it was established, the NC3Rs has invested £89.3 million in research and £27 million in contracts through its CRACK IT Challenges innovation scheme for UK and EU based institutions, with that funding mainly focused on approaches for safer assessment of pharmaceuticals. It was most welcome that the Science Minister announced in February 2024 that the Government’s investment to the NC3Rs was to increase from £10 million per year to £20 million per year.
Cosmetics: The Government’s decision to ban cosmetic testing on animals was also extremely welcome and I understand that, since the ban of 17 May 2023, no animal testing is being conducted, nor will any testing be authorised, of chemicals that are exclusively intended to be used as ingredients in cosmetics products.
Further, I am aware that the Government will be publishing a plan to accelerate the development, validation and uptake of technologies and methods to reduce the reliance of animals in science later this year.
I hope that this helps to reassure you that the law requires that animals are only used in science where there are no alternatives, where the number of animals used, and potential harm is the minimum needed to achieve scientific benefit.
Toxicology
Toxicity and safety testing provides important information into the biological effect of substances which enable precautions to be taken to protect humans, animals and the environment from adverse effects of products used in medicine, industry, agriculture and households. In the UK it is required by law that all new drugs are tested within two species. This is done to protect humans as the comparative data from both species allows researchers to be confident that toxic effects will be identified in the pre-clinical stages of testing. This approach ensures the safety of healthy volunteers who take part in clinical trials as well as patients who will take the medication.
Bearskin Caps
I am aware of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals’ (PETA) ongoing campaign to replace the real fur used in the bearskin King’s Guards ceremonial caps with faux fur.
Guardsmen take great pride in wearing the bearskin cap, which is an iconic image of Britain. I understand that individual soldiers do not possess their own hats and that they are cared for and shared within the Household Division. Despite their constant use, every effort is made to carefully prolong the longevity of each ceremonial cap. On account of this, they usually last for more than a decade, with some having been in use for as long as 60 years.
That said, I am aware that the Ministry of Defence (MOD) would like to find an alternative material to bearskin should one prove acceptable. Indeed, I am informed that where sustainable, affordable, and appropriate faux material exists, the MOD has used it.
I understand that tests conducted on potential faux fur products have shown that, while water penetration was reduced, it still did not meet the necessary standard, and performed poorly in the remaining basic requirements areas. In addition, the most recent test results, provided by PETA from an accredited testing house, have been analysed by the MOD. The analysis concluded that the fabric only met one of the five basic requirements. To date, and to the MOD’s knowledge, there is no faux fur alternative that meets the required standard to provide an effective replacement for the King’s Guards ceremonial caps.
However, I can assure you that the UK goes to great lengths to ensure that the pelts that make the King's Guards caps are procured in the most responsible way possible. I would like to assure you that bears are never hunted to order for the MOD. Bear pelts used for the King’s Guards’ ceremonial caps are sourced exclusively from Canada precisely because it is a regulated market and a declared party to the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora.
MBR Acres
Establishments, such as MBR Acres, that either breed dogs for use in science elsewhere or conduct regulated procedures on dogs are required to provide care and accommodation to those dogs in line with the published code of practice for that purpose. Adherence to that code of practice, and to all other standard conditions applied to any establishment licence, is assessed by the regulator as part of its compliance assurance programme.
Establishments breeding, supplying, or using dogs in science are contributing to critical activities to protect human health and advance scientific progress. They are operating legally within a regulatory framework that requires licensure and assessment of their compliance.
I will continue to monitor developments in concerning animal welfare closely.
Craig Whittaker MP
April 2024